The meaning of this statement is that, while the metaphysical doctrine of 'reincarnation' is based upon the belief in the existence of the 'soul'--which, because it is considered as having an eternal existence, must also be considered as having a certain 'power' to 'reincarnate'; the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" derives from the Righteousness and Omnipotence of God as expressed in Deuteronomy. In other words, while the belief in the metaphysical doctrine of 'reincarnation' (as well as the doctrine of a metaphysical 'heaven' and 'hell') is based upon human philosophy and the consciousness of the normal human personality--the doctrine of the metaphysical 'soul' being based upon an image of an eternally-existent human identity which is a psychological-intellectual reflex or reaction to the fear of death--the belief in the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" is based, instead, upon the belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus and Mohammed. Thus, the similarity with the Buddhist Doctrine of Rebirth (rather than the metaphysical doctrine of 'reincarnation')--which asserts, on the one hand, that people live more than one life, while also affirming that the personal identity (i.e., the metaphysical 'soul') is an illusion. [Similarities between the Teaching of Jesus and the Teaching of Buddha--see also "Jesus and Buddha--the parallel sayings" (Marcus Borg, Editor; Ulysses Press, 1997) & "East Meets West--the Uncanny Parallels in the Lives of Buddha and Jesus" (Bible Review, October 1999, pgs. 18-29)--derive not from any cultural dissemination of Buddhist Doctrine in ancient Israel; but, rather, from a similarity in religious experience. While Buddhist tradition clearly asserts that Buddha received what would be referred to as the revelation of the memories of previous lives, however, there is no evidence that he had received the other element of the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead": the Revelation of the Memory of Creation. And it is precisely for this reason that I assert that the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" is not identical to the Buddhist Doctrine of Rebirth.)]
And, finally, before leaving the "Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead" entirely, a few comments must be made in explanation of the following statements:
"Now if we are manifest in this world wearing him, we are that one's beams, and we are embraced by him until our setting, that is to say, our death in this life. We are drawn to heaven by him, like beams by the sun, not being restrained by anything. This is the spiritual resurrection which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the fleshly." (pg. 51)
"But if there is one who does not believe, he does not have the capacity to be persuaded. For it is the position of faith, my son, and not that which belongs to persuasion: the dead shall arise!" (pg. 51, punctuation in the original)
What, then, is the precise meaning of the "spiritual resurrection", the 'psychic resurrection' and the 'fleshly resurrection'?
The 'fleshly resurrection' must, of course, be the 'resurrection' of a person when he or she is reborn to live another life--thus, the similarity with the Buddhist Doctrine of Rebirth. The 'psychic resurrection', on the other hand, refers to the actual revelation of the memories of previous lives itself; while the "spiritual resurrection" refers to the Revelation of the Memory of the Creation; or, more specifically, the Revelation of the consciousness of man at the moment of Creation--i.e., the consciousness of the Knowledge of Truth--which, subsequently, was lost through the 'Fall', resulting in the formation of the normal human consciousness or personality. (And it was this 'spiritual' understanding of the 'resurrection', rather than merely the 'fleshly resurrection', that Jesus was referring to in his discussion with Nicodemus--cf. John 3:3-10). Thus, it is clear that the "spiritual resurrection" has the greatest importance--i.e., "swallows up" both the "psychic" and the "fleshly" resurrection.
And a consideration of these aspects of the "resurrection of the dead" forms a major focus of the "Exegesis on the Soul".
2)The "Exegesis on the Soul" (pgs. 180-187 of "The Nag Hammadi Library in English") concerns itself not so much with the relationship of the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" to the pagan metaphysical doctrine of 'reincarnation'; nor, specifically, to the revelation of the memories of previous lives; but rather to, specifically, metaphors and symbols descriptive of the consciousness of the Knowledge of Truth. And the greater part of the "Exegesis on the Soul" concerns itself with a metaphorical description of the loss of the consciousness of the Knowledge of Truth--that is, the loss of the 'soul' in the world of illusion created by the normal human consciousness--and the manner in which the consciousness of the Knowledge of Truth is regained through the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead"; as, for example, in the following statements:
"But what does 'the sons of Egypt, men great of flesh' mean if not the domain of the flesh and the perceptible realm and the affairs of the earth, by which the soul has become defiled here, receiving bread from them, as well as wine, oil, clothing, and the other external nonsense surrounding the body--the things she thinks she needs." (pg 182)
"As long as the soul keeps running about everywhere copulating with whomever she meets and defiling herself, she exists suffering her just deserts. But when she perceives the straits she is in and weeps before the Father and repents, then the Father will have mercy on her and he will make her womb turn from the external domain and will turn it again inward, so that the soul will regain her proper character..."(pg. 183)
"Now it is fitting that the soul regenerate herself and become again as she formerly was. The soul then moves of its own accord. And she received the divine nature from the Father for her rejuvenation, so that she might be restored to the place where originally she had been. This is the resurrection that is from the dead. This is the ransom from captivity. This is the upward journey of ascent to heaven. This is the way of ascent to the Father..." (pg 185)
"Then when she becomes young again she will ascend, praising the Father and her brother by whom she was rescued [[this is a reference to the Vision of the "Son of man"]]. Thus it is by being born again that the soul will be saved. And this is due not to rote phrases or to professional skills or to book learning. Rather it [is] the grace of the [[Father--most probably]] it is] the gift of the [[Son of man--most probably]]. For such is this heavenly thing." (Quoted from pg. 185--except for the words in double brackets.)
And a similar discussion also occurs in the Gospel of Philip.
3)"The Gospel of Philip" (pgs. 135-151 of "The Nag Hammadi Library in English") contains very few specific references to the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" Itself, but is concerned mostly with the further development of the symbols and metaphors concerning the conflict between Truth and illusion and the change of consciousness which is achieved through Revelation--a complete explanation of which will probably not be completed, even on the basis of understanding the Truth about the "resurrection of the dead", within the next 50 years. (In other words, research on the Nag Hammadi Codices--as well as on the Dead Sea Scrolls--is merely in its infancy; and will, most probably, begin in earnest only after this present generation of researchers and their students are either dead or retired.) Thus, the explanation of the following statements from the "Gospel of Philip" does not claim to be either exhaustive or complete; but consists of little more than the establishing of a basis for future research--research which, of course, must, of necessity, diverge sharply from the kind of research which has been done on the Nag Hammadi Codices over the past 50 years:
"Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection will he not die? As God lives, he would be (already) [dead]." (pg. 134)
The first sentence has not one but two meanings. First, it refers to the fact that Jesus had lived previous lives and had undergone a 'fleshly resurrection'. And, secondly, it refers to the fact that Jesus had also experienced the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead"--consisting of the "psychic" as well as the "spiritual" resurrections.
The next two sentences redefine death not as the absence of biological life; but, rather, as the loss of the consciousness of the Knowledge of Truth (i.e., the loss of the consciousness of man at the moment of Creation, which is Revealed through the "spiritual" resurrection)--which resulted in the formation of the normal human personality in the first place. In other words, those who have not received the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" are, by definition, 'dead'; whereas those who have received the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" "can no longer die"--as was stated by Jesus in his reply to the Sadducees (cf. Luke 20:36) (This re-definition of death as the loss of the consciousness of the Knowledge of Truth is, by the way, crucial to understanding that the statement of Jesus that they "can no longer die" is not an affirmation of the eternal existence of any so-called metaphysical 'soul'--as is the typical Christian, or pagan metaphysical interpretation of such a statement; but, rather, a description of the characteristics of consciousness of those with a Knowledge of Truth.)
"Either he will be in this world or in the resurrection or in the places in the middle. God forbid that I be found in them! In this world there is good and evil. Its good is not good, and its evil not evil. But there is evil after this world which is truly evil--what is called 'the Middle'. It is death. While we are in this world it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection for ourselves, so that when we strip off the flesh we may be found in rest and not walk in the Middle. For many go astray on the way. For it is good to come forth from the world before one has sinned." (pg. 140)
These passages are an explanation of different states of human consciousness relative to the Knowledge of Truth:
Those who are "in this world" refers to those who have a normal human consciousness and are completely consumed with the cares of this world. Those who are "in the resurrection" refers to those who have received the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" and, for that reason, can be described as having a consciousness of the Knowledge of Truth. Those who are 'in the middle' refers to the intermediate state of consciousness between the normal human consciousness and the consciousness of the Knowledge of Truth which occurs after the annihilation of the structures of the normal human consciousness under the Force of Revealed Truth. Esoterically, this is referred to as the 'war in heaven between Michael and his angels and the dragon and his angels' (cf. Revelations 12); whereas Western psychology is incapable of recognizing what is occurring and, for that reason, describes it as 'psychosis', an 'acute schizophrenic episode', etc, etc.
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. One will not receive Truth in any other way. There is rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary that they should be born again through the image. What is the resurrection? The image must rise again through the image. The [bridegroom] and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration." (pg. 140)
What is being described here is the difference between the direct experience of Revealed Truth--or Knowledge--and illusion; that is, between Knowledge and belief.
There is, for example, no other way to convey the Truth about the "resurrection of the dead" other than to say that It includes the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives. Yet these are merely images of Truth. It is only after a person directly receives the experience of the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" Itself that the image (in which God Created man--cf. Genesis 1:27) 'enters through the image' of the words, and a person receives the Knowledge of Truth. In other words, those who are reading these words possess, at this point, merely an image (or a conjectured meaning) of these words created by the normal human consciousness in response to the fear of death and the desire for intellectual pleasure. And it is only after those who read these words actually receive the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" that they will come to an understanding of the Truth which exists behind these words, and which these words are attempting to convey. And it is only on the basis of this understanding that the significance of Matthew 27:52-53 can be fully appreciated. (See below.)
"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." (pg. 144)
In all of the Nag Hammadi Codices, this is probably the most definitive statement demonstrating the opposition between the Truth about the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead"--specifically, that It includes the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and a revelation of the memories of previous lives--and the determined misinterpretation of the "resurrection of the dead" which, instead, was adopted by Paul and his followers in order to maintain institutional stability and the lines of authority within the early Christian religious establishment. Thus, it was impossible for both the "Gospel of Philip" and Paul's second epistle to Timothy--referred to above as 2 Timothy--to have been included in the same Bible as a result of this fundamental contradiction over the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead". And, if it is to be concluded on the basis of 2 Timothy that Paul did not understand the Truth about the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead"--as should be obvious after this discussion--then it also becomes clear that Paul, the Pharisee, was the principal source for the distortion of the Revelations taught by Jesus, inasmuch as the Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" was fundamental to that Teaching. (This, then, was the fundamental reason for the hatred of the Pharisees by the original followers of Jesus: that they intentionally misinterpreted or contradicted the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" to preserve their own power; and, hence, the pejorative nature of the term 'Pharisaic'.)
Having firmly established--on the basis of merely an initial perusal of the "Treatise on the Resurrection", the "Exegesis on the Soul", and the "Gospel of Philip"--that the initial followers of Jesus adhered to an understanding of the Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" as being similar to the Buddhist Doctrine of Rebirth; the next essay will analyze in detail the words of Jesus as well as other statements from the Gospels demonstrating the Doctrinal and Revelational continuity between the Gospels and the Nag Hammadi Codices.